M/S MAHALAXMI MAHILA VIKAS SANSTHA ,HINGOLI V. CPC, FACELESS PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGLURU

ITA 814/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Mahalaxmi Mahila Vikas Sanstha Hingoli, which appealed against the orders of the Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Bengaluru, for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The primary issue was the rejection of the claim for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the non-filing of Form No.10B audit report within the prescribed time. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had condoned the delay in filing the audit report, and thus, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474189 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: CHARUHAS D. UPASANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 250; 143(1); 12AA; 12; 10B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.814 & 815/PUN/2024 \u0001नधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. Mahalaxmi Mahila Vikas Sanstha Hingoli At Post Hingoli, Hingoli – 431001 PAN: AACTM8683M Vs. CPC, Faceless Processing Centre, Bengaluru Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : These assessee’s twin appeals, ITA Nos.814 & 815/PUN/2024, for AYrs 2014-15 and 2015-16, arise against the Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Bengaluru’s separate orders dated 29.02.2024 passed in case Din & Order Nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061775472(1) and ITBA /APL/S/250 /2023-24/1061753970(1), respectively in proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. Assessee by Shri Charuhas D. Upasani Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing 15.10.2024 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2024 ITA Nos.814 & 815/PUN/2024 M/s. Mahalaxmi Mahila Vikas Sanstha Hingoli 2 2. A combined perusal of the assessee’s instant twin appeals reveals that both the learned lower authorities has rejected its claim of section 11 exemption for the sole reason that it had not filed its Form No.10B audit report within the prescribed time, i.e. due date of filing section 139(1) return and therefore, it has been held as not entitled for the said relief. 3. Learned departmental representative refers to the NFAC’s identical findings in para Nos. 3 to .3.2 in both these appeals to this clinching aspect reading as under : “3. The submissions of the assessee were examined. It is a fact that the assesse has not filed the audit report within the time limit specified. Further, it is seen that in the return of income the assessee had admitted the entire receipts of Rs.61,64,510/- as income and had claimed the application (Rs.55,05,570/-) as expenses. The application constitutes 89% of the income received. The balance sum (Rs.6,58,940/-) the assessee had offered as taxable income. It was seen that the assessee had not claimed any exemption u/s 11, 12 of the Act. In the intimation u/s 143(1), the income assessed was Rs.61,64,510/-, that is the entire receipts. 3.1 It is seen that the assessee had obtained registration u/s 12AA of the Act vide order 24/11/2017 with effect from FY:2017-18, subsequent to the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Further, the assessee has stated that, the delay in filing of audit report in Form 108 has been condoned by CIT(E) vide order in ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1031636421 (1) dated 21/03/2021. The assessee had stated that its rectification petition subsequent to the condonation of delay has also been rejected by the assessing officer as the registration u/s 12AA of the Act was granted only from FY:2017-18. ITA Nos.814 & 815/PUN/2024 M/s. Mahalaxmi Mahila Vikas Sanstha Hingoli 3 3.2 It is seen that the assessee had not filed the tax audit report in time. The assessee has claimed that the return of income and expenses were claimed under normal provisions of Income Tax. The assessee had stated that the trust has not claimed any exemption u/s.11, 12 of the Act, hence denial of exemption u/s.11 and 12 does not arise. The claim of the Assessee is perused and the assessee has not fumished any supporting documents to substantiate their claim. Further, even if the return is filed under provisions other than exemption provisions, the assessee could not explain why the return of income is filed by using ITR 7. Further the Assessee has filed Audit report under Form 10B whereas a non- trust assessee need not file Audit report under Form 10B. The assessee could not file any explanation why the audit report was filed by using Form 10B. In the absence of supporting documents, the claim of the assessee is not be acceptable, therefore the claim of the assessee is rejected and the order u/s 143(1) is confirmed.” 4. The assessee on the other hand submits that the prescribed authority herein, i.e., CIT(Exemption) has already condoned the foregoing delay vide his twin orders; both dated 21.03.2021 having Din & Order Nos.ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1031636413(1) and ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1031636421(1), respectively which are placed on record in the case files. This being the clinching factual position, we deem it proper in the interest of justice that given the learned CIT(Exemption)/prescribed authority has already accepted the assessee’s mitigating circumstances, its instant twin appeals deserve to be restored back to the CIT(A) for his fresh appropriate adjudication as per law. We order accordingly subject to a rider that it shall be the assessee’s responsibility to plead and prove all the relevant facts within ITA Nos.814 & 815/PUN/2024 M/s. Mahalaxmi Mahila Vikas Sanstha Hingoli 4 three effective opportunities on its own responsibilities in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. To sum up, these assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos.814 & 815/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (S.S. GODARA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; \u0011दनांक Dated : 21st October, 2024 Satish आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल\fप अ\u000fे\fषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0018 / The Appellant; 2. \u0019\u001aयथ\u0018 / The Respondent; 3. The concerned Pr.CIT; 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “A” / DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune 5. गाड\u0016 फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune "